Hewett and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Hewett against decisions made by Comcare regarding her entitlement to compensation. The dispute centred on whether Ms Hewett's ongoing psychological and physical conditions, specifically a cervical spine complaint and associated pain, were attributable to her employment and whether she continued to suffer from the effects of an accepted work injury. The case was heard by Ms Anna Burke, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold. Firstly, it had to determine the causal link between Ms Hewett's employment and her cervical spine condition, including whether a work incident in 2004 aggravated pre-existing degenerative changes, leading to a disc prolapse and subsequent surgery. Secondly, the Tribunal was required to assess whether Ms Hewett's psychological condition constituted an adjustment disorder or an underlying disorder, and whether her current symptoms and need for treatment were a continuing consequence of her accepted work injury, thereby entitling her to ongoing compensation for permanent impairment and medical expenses.

The Tribunal considered medical evidence from orthopaedic surgeon Mr Iain Kelman and neurosurgeon Mr David Brownbill, as well as the advice of Associate Professor Mendelson regarding Ms Hewett's psychological state. While Mr Brownbill opined that the 2004 work incident was a major contributor to ongoing neck pain and a later disc prolapse, Mr Kelman's earlier report suggested that Ms Hewett's employment issues contributed only to her stress and that her cervical spine condition was resolved. Associate Professor Mendelson diagnosed cyclothymia, indicating an underlying psychological predisposition, and questioned the diagnosis of adjustment disorder given Ms Hewett's history of psychological issues predating the 2004 incident. The Tribunal also noted that Comcare's clinical framework for assessing reasonable medical treatment, which prioritises empowering the injured person towards independence, had not been followed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decisions. It found that Ms Hewett was no longer entitled to compensation under section 16 of the SRC Act as she no longer suffered from the effects of the accepted injury. Consequently, her claim for payment for permanent impairment was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed all decisions under review.